Should Democrats Agree To "Entitlement" Cuts If Republicans Agree To Tax Increases On The Rich?

[Better Believe It]

Poll question: Should Democrats Agree To "Entitlement" Cuts If Republicans Agree To Tax Increases On The Rich?

[xchrom]

1. FUCK NO. nt

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

5. I didn't have room to post "Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid" cuts in the caption.

So I put "Entitlement" cuts in quotation marks.

We all understand what the politicians mean we they constantly call for "entitlement cuts".

[Deep13]

9. Why? We're entitled to them.

It's a promise the nation made to itself. Just like we might have title to a house or a car, we have title to those benefits, hence entitlement. I wish people felt the same way about education and healthcare for everyone.

[rurallib]

12. because 'entitlement' is a republican code word meant to bring up

certain bad images. Much like Reagan's 'welfare queen.' Or many of their other code words.
One of my biggest bitches on the media is their use of Republican code words, like 'enhanced interrogation' or 'enemy combatant.'
Especially NPR.
When we use their words we accept their framing for those words.

[Deep13]

15. I generally agree, but I think "entitlement" is actually positive for our side...

...as opposed to being some discretionary welfare benefit.

enemy combatant = enemy soldier

detainee = P.O.W.

enhanced interrogation = torture

surge = escalation

climate change = global warming

freedom (as military mission) = corporate imperialism

successful = rich parasites

illegal aliens = exploited underclass

American exceptionalism = aggressive bigotry

we, us = petty bourgeois white Christian patriarchal society

law and order = prison-industrial complex

fraudulent voters = Democrats

[Avalux]

3. NO NO NO. n/t

[montanacowboy]

4. Hell NO

it's OUR money, we PAID for it

[Autumn]

6. NO

fucking hell no. Any Democrat who agrees with doing that are not Democrats.

[TheKentuckian]

7. Unless you are talking over and above the Bush/Obama cuts, why?

There is no need to negotiate on those, they sunset if we'll let them.

[Better Believe It]

10. The Obama administration and Democrats proposed some tax increases as part of a deal to cut benefits

[emulatorloo]

13. Link?

The cuts scheduled in the trigger package do not cut benefits.

What we need to focus on is 2012. If the Repubs control house and senate, we will see lower taxes on the rich and the destruction ("privatization") of social programs.

[TheKentuckian]

19. I understand they did but I don't see the point of the proposal if those cuts aren't over and above

the Bush/Obama tax cuts which sunset.

Again, what is the point?

[Deep13]

8. That's moving in the wrong direction. nt

[emulatorloo]

11. The Republicans are not going to raise taxes on the Rich

Thatvis going to require we take back the house in 2012 and get a solid majority in the senate.

[pansypoo53219]

14. IF THE BUSH TAX CUTS DIE, the debt will be fixed over a few years.

why is nobody discussing the clinton years???? the gnews media amnesia is APPALLING.

[Better Believe It]

16. That would help but ending the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the rich is not nearly enough.

You also need to cut the military budget and actually increase taxes for corporations and the rich to a point higher than they were during the Clinton administration so that we have badly needed government revenues to fund a real jobs program.

We need a few trillion in funding for massive government public works programs along the lines of the WPA and a President who supports such job creation programs.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. Fuck. It.

Nationalize the banks & invest their holdings in humane enterprises like building a new green infrastructure, caring for the homeless and disabled, and setting up factories on the worker-co-öp model. Bring home the military, end the oil wars, and turn our attention to conserving energy & producing it with ecologically sustainable processes--everything from tidal to solar.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. No, Hell no.

People near the bottom should not be asked to give up necessities in exchange for those on top giving up (at most) some small luxuries.

[jtown1123]

20. HELL NO. These programs aren't bargaining chips n/t

[Better Believe It]

23. According to Senator Kerry they were.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. They shouldn't but they probably will even if there are no increased taxes on the rich.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. HELL NO! n/t

[Better Believe It]

24. Kick

[woo me with science]

25. Wait, is this part of the Kabuki scheduled before or after they make the defense cuts go away?

I think the entries on my program are mixed up.

[Better Believe It]

26. I think after.

[Telly Savalas]

27. Or to rephrase the question: are Americans entitled to entitlements?

If the answer is that Americans aren't entitled to entitlements, then maybe we should stop calling them that, yeah?